On the face of it, this sounds like a certain type of DNA — the DNA from our babies, not theirs — is a prerequisite for maintaining our civilization and culture. The horrors! Pass the smelling salts.

However, in explaining what he meant in a follow-up interview (where super liberal Cuomo states “[America is]known … as a bastion of diversity and it is an unqualified strength for us”), King makes it clear that he is all about cultural and genetic assimilation — that he opposes setting up of isolated ethnic/religious enclaves that remain isolated from the rest of society even after 2 or 3 generations. Indeed he looks forward to the day when all Americans look the same as a result of intermarriage, presumably some shade of brown, with genetically recessive blondness entirely eradicated. He is opposed to allowing people into the US (or Europe) who hate Western civilization, and he complains that the left is out to destroy Western civilization and “replace it with something entirely different.” He is unabashedly pro-Western civilization (“Western civilization is a superior civilization and we want to share it with everybody”), noting that the spread of Western civilization via the English language has been associated with increased personal freedom and higher standards of living.

Cuomo then presses the point, asking if Muslims, Jews, Christians, Italians, etc. are Americans, and asserting that “they are all equal … We don’t need babies from any one of those groups more than from any other of those groups.” Rep. King then seems to say that, although everyone is equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law, not all groups contribute equally to society: “Certain individuals contribute more to society than others, and certain groups of people will do more on the productive side than other groups, that’s just a statistical fact.” Cuomo, being your standard liberal, says that these differences are entirely explained by differences in opportunity, whereas King puts the blame squarely on culture. But in any case, according to King, it has nothing to do with race: “It’s the culture, not the blood … it’s never been about race.” If children from other cultures were adopted into American homes (i.e., assimilated American homes), they would all grow up to be good Americans.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Rep. King certainly has a consistent perspective: Unassimilated enclaves of people within Western societies contribute less because of their culture. The key difference between him and Cuomo is that King thinks Western culture is superior and we should do our best to maintain it by assimilating other peoples to it and encouraging assimilated peoples to have more children. On the other hand, Cuomo doesn’t have a problem with multi-culturalism (although early on he makes a gaffe by stating America is a “melting pot” — anathema to today’s left) and presumably thinks that any differences in how much people contribute to society is entirely due to whether or not they have been held back by White racism.

Rep. King is certainly pushing the limits of acceptable discourse in mainstream America. His talk about “other people’s babies” certainly does sound like he is referring to DNA, but he deftly dodged the bullet by framing it in terms of cultural assimilation. Still, maintaining that Western culture is superior and that assimilation to Western values is essential is certainly not the program of the multicultural ideologues on the left. The left has unabashedly promoted identity politics for all the groups they are so intent on importing into Western societies, with the proviso that any inkling of identity politics for the Whites who invented the civilization is anathema. The inevitable result of this is the racialization of politics and an upsurge in implicit (and even explicit White) identity. After all, White people seeing manifestations of group solidarity every day on TV and in their social media — whether its Black Lives Matter protests, Mexican flags waved at anti-Trump rallies, or terrorism by strongly identified Muslims or calls for sharia law by Muslim groups in the UK — are bound to start thinking of themselves as a group, just like everyone else. Social Psychology 101: Visible outgroups, especially if they are noisy, aggressive and hostile, trigger a stronger ingroup identity.

In the wake of the election, even some liberals, finally realizing this, began to callfor an end to identity politics. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind. Identity politics is profoundly antithetical to the liberal traditions of the West based on individualism.

On the other hand, from an Alt Right perspective Rep. King’s comments fall short of the mark. As race realists, we suppose that, even though some people are likely more assimilable than others, substituting other people’s babies wouldn’t work in the long run. Muslims, originating from the Middle East with its long history of societies fragmented into segmented, clan-based groups, seem to be particularly prone to maintaining their culture. Muslim culture is quite foreign to European liberal culture (especially on issues such as the rights of women); not even the benighted Chris Cuomo could think that simply supplanting Americans with Muslims wouldn’t change our culture and institutions.

And neither King nor Cuomo deal with the reality of race differences in IQ and impulse control which are so essential to success in navigating the complexities of contemporary society. Within American society, the racial gap in academic achievement continues, unaffected by the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on uplift programs for low-achieving minorities. European societies are now seeing the same patternwith African and Muslim immigrants.

Does anyone seriously think that importing millions of Black African converts to Judaism would maintain Israel as a Jewish state?

Despite King’s disclaimers, he seems quite aware that the left is eagerly awaiting the demise of White America. In a radio interview, he stated, referring to people like Latino activist Jorge Ramos, “Their effort here is to be celebrating because the United States is moving towards becoming, the whites becoming a minority, a majority-minority within the country according to what their plan is.”King also recommended that listeners read the novel, The Camp of the Saints, by French author Jean Raspail, “a book about Europe being overcome by immigrants which has also frequently been referenced by top Trump adviser Steve Bannon. The book has been criticized as presenting a racist view of immigration.”

On the whole, then, King would seem to be at least implicitly White and probably, if you got into his heart of hearts, he really does get it. Realizing that non-Whites are eagerly awaiting Whites becoming a minority has a way of doing that.

Also, King’s saying that Western culture is superior does flirt with the possibility that something about European genetic uniquenessfed into the triumph of the West. And if there is indeed something genetically unique about the peoples who created Western society — a genetic basis for Western individualism, then of course one could not recreate European civilization with peoples from a different gene pool. What’s so amazing is that liberals like Cuomo believe with absolute certainty that this could not be the case. It’s an a priori moral certainty, not subject to debate and immune to all the data from behavior genetics and the long history of ethnic and religious conflict. And if you don’t subscribe to such ideas, you are an evil person — a moral cretin rightly outside of the morally defined ingroup.

Sorry, but that’s pure ideology, a poisonous ideology that is obviously contrary to the legitimate genetic interests of European-descended peoplesand the legitimate interests of European-descended people to create their own cultures. The left has replaced the utopia of a classless society with the utopia of a kumbaya future where all ethnic and religious groups will live peacefully together in mutually supportive relations with each other. King realizes this is ridiculous, predicting “Blacks and Hispanics ‘will be fighting each other’ before overtaking whites in population.” Black/Latino tensions in the Los Angeles areaare well known.

With the experience of how those classless utopias created by the left actually functioned, with their economic difficulties (now recreated in Venezuela), their lack of personal freedom, and millions of state-sponsored murders, one should be permitted to at least entertain an opposing point of view within the mainstream media: As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Multiculturalism will not end well.

May I cut in to answer your question, Pat? As the failure to act upon one’s good intentions is implicit in the wise old saw, one might reasonably say that at least one element making up the heavenly road’s pavement is good intentions that have been acted upon; in other words, good deeds.

Whatever the value of the aphorism in the present context, however, I think that the more important term Professor MacDonald employs appears earlier in the selfsame paragraph. I refer to utopia. With his customary generosity, KM is using utopia as a plainly neutral moral descriptor of the (((program))) Chris Cuomo advances. Yet KM just as plainly speaks of the program as embodying “an a priori moral certainty, not subject to debate and immune to all the data from behavior genetics and the long history of ethnic and religious conflict.” Put otherwise, as an axiom based on a proved falsehood, Cuomo’s program must ipso facto be immoral: contra factum non valet argumentum.

From this observation, it is a very short step to seeing that any proclaimed utopia is inherently deceptive and innately immoral. All such in effect declare, “Reality, you will obey my orders,” whereas reality is as complaisant to human demands as the tides were to Canute! One thinks, too, of Burke’s sentiment (I must perforce resort here to paraphrase) that it is ludicrous to construct a society on a foundation of human aspiration rather than human nature.

I looked up Utopia in the Merriam Webster online Dictionary.. The word first used by Sir Thomas More in his 1516 book Utopia, is a combination of two Greek words, “ou” meaning NO, and “topos”, meaning PLACE. Utopia= NO PLACE. LOL

Just so, Bobby. By the way, More’s Utopia is a highly recommendable read. In my youth it was required reading for every college literature student.*

The most important thing to recall about Utopia is that it was written as a satire of a society where human nature—especially as that nature involves virtues and vices—is treated as almost infinitely malleable and hence easy to transform. And since More, like the great Greco-Roman satirists who were his model, maintains a poker face throughout, it’s no wonder that (((apologists))) for Bolshevism and for the “great Soviet experiment” have long cited it approvingly as communist avant la lettre. Trust me here, Bobby; it ain’t.

Although the author’s poker face, moral concerns, and (no longer valid, alas) assumptions of a reader’s familiarity with what were then contemporary personalities, ideas, and events have made Utopia no longer the very easy read it clearly once was—compare the extraordinarily puzzled responses to the book from a large percentage of its Amazon reviewers for depressing evidence of the widespread success of the Jewish-led transformation of education into brainwashing and indoctrination—the book still has the great attraction of being blessedly short (most published editions require far fewer than 150 pages). For some readers, it also offers the deep pleasure of seeing a genuinely superior mind at work and play, albeit very sophisticated play.
___________*In my day my college had a six-credit English literature survey course as a requirement for all English majors. When at the start of the fall semester the professor passed out the list of materials that were to be read in full (i.e., rather than merely studied or read in excerpt form), one of my bolder fellow students politely objected that as Utopia had been written in Latin, it really didn’t belong in the survey course. The prof, smiling, replied as follows: “You are quite right, of course. But you see, as I am the head of the English department and you’re not, I get to decide what you must read if you wish to pass!”

This is Portuguese. Here is the Google translation, for what it is worth :

LOTS OF HYPOCRISY YOU CAN TALK TO GENOCIDE CULTURALLY THE EAST BUT CAN NOT TALK TO PRESERVE THE WEST DNA

THE CAUSE IS OBVIOUS A HELP TO DESTROY THE WEST DNA FROM THE MOST UNDER THE ONE THE ALOGENO INFILATES IF TAQYIA SUCKS DESTROY AND BECOMES PSEUDO OUR AND IT IS SINS TO SAY THE REAL REVERSE SO THAT THE REGIME CONTINUES ITS GARBAGE

Thanks, Mr. Ryckaert, for this specimen of truly hilarious proof (if such proof were still needed) that Google Translate, as often as not, provides translations that are even less comprehensible than the originals.

Here is a working translation with some liberty taken to get across the intent rather than a literal translation, bear in mind that I have much more Spanish than Portuguese. As a side note, I have an idea of who might have sent this but I forgot the name of the website and website owner. I lost it because of hacker attacks and having to change things like web browsers. I might find it later. BTW if you cannot get a good traslation of something that looks like Portuguese, try Aragones or Ladino, they are quite similar. Here is my translation:

:It is great hypocrisy that one may speak of cultural genocide of the West but one may not speak of preserving the DNA of the West.

The cause is obvious, an attempt to destroy the DNA of the West, through the infiltration and embedding (lit. lodging) of Taqiyya (Arabic word for deceit in furthernace of Islam) and it is a sin to contradict it (Taqiyya) so that the regime is able to continue its garbage (taking advantage of suckers?).

Of course the suckers will fall like ducks (the suckers will be taken in and defeated easily).

It’s really quite a tightrope the Liberal and Leftist must walk: pretending that they themselves don’t think race is important (and depending on their mood, might not even exist); yet ever watchful should a person of White descent show any interest in group survival; and utterly hyper-aware of any intimations about qualitative differences in the races that might redound to Whites.

From cheerful encouragement of vibrant non-White cultures, to shocked vigilance of anything hinting at White pride, zero to sixty in under five seconds.

Since the question wasn’t put to me, I’ll answer in a separate place: The road to heaven is paved with wise and virtuous deeds and actions. Such actions are rooted in the way things actually are — in reality.

“…with genetically recessive genes like blondeness entirely eradicated.” As a redhead my genes are destined to go the way of the Triceratops.
But it’s for the best, afterall, blondes are overrepresented in drive-by shootings and gang warfare, not to mention corrupt and devious redheads and blondes manipulating finances, promoting smut and social decay, war for profit and the general destabilization of once functioning societies.

“Does anyone seriously think that importing millions of Black African converts to Judaism would maintain Israel as a Jewish state?” Not likely, but it would certainly be racial poetic justice. Furthermore, it is a question that should be constantly put to duplicitous diaspora Jews who doggedly push multiculturalism and alien immigration onto others.

That is not a rhetorical question. Black Jews from Ethiopia are discriminated against in Israel. The government even tried to sterilize their women by giving them Depo-Provera, so called a “medicine” but in reality an anti-conception drug. Read : Independent, Sunday, 27 January 2013 : Israel Gave Birth Control To Ethiopian Jews Without Their Consent.

There is another reason, apart from racism, for the Israeli aversion to Ethiopian Jews; the latter are biblical, pre-Rabbinic Jews and whilst they have the Torah (the ‘written law’) amongst their central texts, they do not have the Talmud (the ‘oral law’) and they still have priests, not rabbis, and do not observe the post-biblical ‘jewish holidays’ such as Hanukah and Purim. Otherwise, they are very similar but the absence of the Talmud as an influence on them is crucial because it underlines how very recent, historically and theologically, Talmudism actually is, and how deviant it is from its supposed origins. It should be recalled that it was the Oral Tradition against which Christ spoke as setting men above God and placing them in the service of Satan, “they who call themselves Jews but are not.”

@ Guest,
Wonderfully said!
I would suggest that we consider using “Talmudist” for this group.
It appears that the use of the term, “Jew” provides them undeserved position. Talmud is the work “of your father the devil.”
Let them wear that approbation!

“There is an eery sense in which National Socialist ideology was a mirror image of traditional Jewish ideology. As in the case of Judaism, there was a strong emphasis on racial purity and on the of group primacy of group ethnic interests rather than individual interests. Like the Jews, the National Socialists were greatly concerned with eugenics. Like the Jews, there was a powerful concern with socializing group members into accepting group goals and with the importance of within-group altruism and cooperation in attaining these goals. Both groups had very powerful internal social controls that punished individuals who violated group goals or attempted to exploit the group by freeloading. The National Socialists enacted a broad grange of measures against Jews as a group, including laws against intermarriage and sexual contact, as well as laws preventing socialization between group and restricting the economic and political opportunities of Jews. These laws were analogous to the elaborate social controls within the Jewish community to prevent social contact with gentiles and to produce high levels of economic and political cooperation. Corresponding to the religious obligation to reproduce and multiply enshrined in the Tanakh, the National Socialists placed a strong emphasis on fertility and enacted laws that restricted abortion and discouraged birth control. In a manner analogous to the traditional Jewish religious obligation to provide dowries for poor girls, The National Socialists enacted laws that enabled needy young couples to marry by providing them loans repayable by having children.”

Actually there exists an (unofficial) “caste system” in Israel based on skin color. At the top are the light skinned Ashkenazi Jews, next the somewhat darker Sephardi Jews, next the Mizrahi or Oriental Jews, who look like Arabs, then the small group of Jews from India, at the bothom the black Ethiopian Jews, who are openly discriminated. Non-Jews who are loyal to the Jewish state such as Druzes are still discriminated. Druzes fallen in war are not allowed to be burried in Jewish cemeteries. There is a Jewish organization that actively tries to prevent Jewish girls from dating Arabs. There exists no secular marriage in Israel, and for a purpose. Jews can only be married by rabbis, but they refuse to marry a Jew with a non-Jew. There is discrimination in employement, housing and education against non-Jews. There is a reason Israel is called an “apartheid state”.

The Jewish objective is to have fewer White people in White countries, but I don’t think most liberals have any long term objective or any real beliefs. They just have a set of Jewish-influenced postures. Cuomo strongly attacks dissenters because he strongly enjoys doing so, not because he strongly believes his own nonsense. Liberals don’t care if what they say makes sense.

What’s annoying about them is that they would rather not say outright that White people are interchangeable with Papuans, African Pygmies and Australian Aborigines. They think it’s safer to simply complain about the racists who don’t think White people can be replaced by any other race.

When the anti-White media denounce White people speaking up against the destruction of the White race, they usually won’t come clean and say outright that they themselves support the destruction of the White race!

And yet, if they don’t have any particular desire to destroy the White race, why would they object to our defense of our collective existence? It’s obvious they are working to destroy us, but they won’t admit it. Steve King could have challenged Cuomo on that point.

The example given in a comment of Ethiopians in Israel gave rise to thoughts of a devious scheme. President Trump wants to eliminate the absurd position of an Special Envoy to combat antisemitism. Congress will likely prevail in retaining this money waster. This could prove to be an opportunity to hoist the Jews on their own petard.

This office should explore the claims of various third world tribal claims to be Jewish. It is inherent in the authorization. Such peoples exist across Africa, India and even in the South American Andes. With enough research Australian aborigines might be found be a Lost Tribe. If these groups are suffering any sort of social exclusion – Presto Magic! – antisemitism has been found and the American government has taken on the task of certifying just who is and who is not Jewish.

This creates a problem for Racist Israelis: How do they refuse a homeland for all these Pygmy Jews? American foreign aid to Israel should be directed towards settling these, the most persecuted among all Jews, in Israel. This humanitarian project should be earmarked in the aid package. Morality demands that it be an overriding, high priority. After all Jewry is just a social construct.

@ Monitors, relevant to nothing discussed here but relevant anyhow, you are probably bombarded not only with comments, but the same old ips addresses popping up daily. There are many of us who see what’s happening and for whatever reasons, age, position etc. are unable to take this fight beyond the internet. Thank you for being an oasis. Your importance cannot be overestimated.

People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

Today, globalists say All nations are ‘nations of immigrants’ since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
But even if we agree that all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, why are they different? Because different peoples ‘immigrated’ there. So, white Europeans ‘immigrated’ to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people ‘immigrated’ to Japan and made it East Asian.

So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are ‘nations of immigrants’, they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people ‘immigrated’ there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let’s use the broad term of ‘immigration’ to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
So, one can say US has been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were ‘immigrants’ going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives ‘immigrated’ from North America.

Still, a ‘nation of immigrants’ means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

Consider an alternative American history. Let’s say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug — don’t ask me how — and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
Now, this US would have been a ‘nation of immigrants’ too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as ‘white trash’. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is ‘American’. So, every American state is equally ‘American’. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a ‘nation of immigrants’. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.

——————-

Many non-whites and white Progs take umbrage at the notion that US has essentially been a white nation founded by Anglos and their systems and culture.

They say NO PEOPLE are more quintessential to America(or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) than any other.

Okay, but how come most immigration-preferences are so Anglo-White-supremacist?
If indeed all peoples are equally capable with the availability of ideas and means, the whole world should be as successful as the US. After all, esp with the internet, the whole world has access to all the ideas, values, and sciences that make up the US and other such nations.

Why didn’t Jews push for an Ellis Island mythology in Latin American nations?
Why do Asians prefer Anglo-founded nations over Latin-founded ones or non-white ones?
Indeed, they prefer Anglo-founded white nations to fellow Asian ones.
Why do Africans prefer to move to Anglo-founded white nations than to fellow African nations or Arab nations? Even when Africans reach Europe, they move to northern areas despite cold climate because they find Northern Europeans to run things better.

All these peoples want to feed on Anglo-white-ness and want to live under Anglo-white-rule, but they bitch about how they are just as good and it’d be no loss if US became minority-white and become flooded with peoples like themselves. (If so, why flee from people like themselves in their own nations?)
If they’re just as good, why can’t they turn their nations into Anglo-white-like nations? Why do they dream of going to Anglo-white nations? Why can’t they realize any dream in their own nations?

And the Jews. Jews bitch on and on about how the US must be diverse and give up its whiteness. But the main reason why Jews were so eager to move to the US was because of its Anglo-white foundings and systems that they found superior to any other in the world. Would such system have come into being without Anglo-whites? Jews call for the demise of the very people who did most to build a nation that appealed so much to Jews. Would Jews have wanted to come to US if it was founded by Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, or Portuguese?

Now, some will say the Anglo-White system is an idea or proposition that can be adopted by any people. But how come the world sucks at doing this? Even in Asia that saw lots of growth and expansion, the majority of people say they wanna move to Anglo-white nations if given a chance.

So, it seems only white folks, esp Anglo-whites and Northern Europeans, can run really good societies.

Lefties will absolutely admit they want whites gone. I recall a while back on Twitter the hashtag #whitegenocide was trending and I got involved. The lefties swear that there is no such thing as white genocide, but they’re glad whites are dying off just the same. Their viciousness is both obvious and disgusting, and they are filled with hatred for innocent white people.

Slightly off topic. Events in France are not covered in any depth in the Anglosphere. To remedy that deficiency galliawatch blogspot is doing some valuable work in providing translations and commentary on the French presidential elections. Worth reading.

I got my 4 year degree at UC Berkeley. I had Marxist roommates and took the opportunity to read some of their newsletters. I remember clearly reading that they see white people as the primary obstacle to bringing about their utopia. No surprise to me that our elimination is a primary goal of the Judeo-Marxists.

Jewish-led transformation of education into brainwashing and indoctrination

Such as John Dewey and the other non-jew pragmatists and progressives?

The American government thought control centers [“schools”]- copied after the Prussian model- designed explicitly to break the will. . .

English major! Ah haha ah- another grad with a degree in the humanities who doesn’t know the difference between books and reality. Have you ever rebuilt or hot-rodded a small block Chevy? In ’64 I installed a 389 Pontiac big block into my ’54 Studebaker [designed by Robert Bourke of the Raymond Loewy studio] with no assistance.

{it seems LOEWY is on the jewish surname index- jewish father. jews have a way of taking credit from others. . .}

I hope that you and your Studebaker memories keep you warm at night, T. J. Though my lack of experience or interest in the joys of hotrodding earns your scornful laughter, I’ll struggle along regardless. Of course, I’ve never laughed at you, despite your silly primary pose of wisecracking sniper at the heels of others’ comments, but I’m sure I could learn to do so—were I disposed to waste the time. (I’m not. There’s work to be done, and my time is short, and my skills—unlike yours, I take it—are limited.)

Likewise, the Modern World is living in a kind of Denialia. Everyday, we deny little things for the sake of convenience. It could be lies we tell to others or to ourselves. But for some people, a steady denial of reality turns into ‘denialia’, and people can end up like Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR or Stephen Glass of New Republic who kept denying and denying his BS. It was beyond lying. It was as if he created his own universe and stuck to it regardless of facts.

MELANCHOLIA is a terrible movie, but it says something about the current European state of mind. A giant demographic asteroid belt or tidal wave is hitting Europe, but Europeans are living in a state of denial. (Or they’ve become accustomed to a kind of pessimism and defeatism borne of Christianity, Ice Age genetics of Ragnarok gloom-and-doom, WWI & WWII loss of confidence, Holocaust guilt, and decadence/convenience. Decadence/convenience may, in some ways, be most instrumental since postwar prosperity took away the survival instincts of western man. A people, no matter how guilt-ridden by PC, will fight for a piece of bread if they are hungry. Even the most libby-dibby progs will fight with blacks and browns for bread and water if faced with survival or death. It’s like the TWILIGHT ZONE episode where neighbors begin to get Primal when faced with the end of times.)

It went from denying little facts to a complete delusional denial of the big truth. But, all lifeforms have some survival instincts, and surely, many Europeans, even ones who welcome the Grand Invasion, are subconsciously feeling some kind of dread. But because of PC-colonization of their mind, they must make themselves believe that the enemy is the friend and the friend-and-savior(the populist patriot heroes) is the enemy. But since this pill is difficult to swallow, they naturally wanna puke it ou. But they’ve been told since childhood that PC is good medicine and that it’d be evil to not swallow it. So, they force themselves to swallow the poison while believing it to be medicine.

People are most passionate about (1) something they truly believe in or (2) something they fear isn’t true but believe to be holy. For (1), the passion is obvious. If you really believe in something, of course you want to root for it. The passion comes naturally and effortlessly. But (2) is more complicated. The passion required isn’t natural. But because PC says you’re a bad bad person unless you show enthusiasm, you must make an EXTRA EFFORT to feel the passion. Thus, you have to struggle with yourself that you really believe in this stuff. Straight people’s support for homos AND secular support for Muslims aren’t natural. But PC promoted homomania and now Islamania as holy, and good progs feel they must be for Homos and Muslims. Since Trump has cozied up to Homos, Progs feel they must now champion Muslims against Trump… but everything secularists believe in don’t jibe well with Sharia or Islam.

In a way, willed passion is more zealous and aggressive than natural passion since one has to stiffen one’s emotions to support something one doesn’t really care for.

I think a lot of Europeans feel, deep down inside, that the massive-invasion by non-whites will spell doom for Europe. But they’ve been mentally-colonized since childhood that Diversity is wonderful and, if you disagree, you are a Bad Bad person. But it’s not natural to welcome massive invasion. Being invaded doesn’t feel right. So, you make an extra effort to feel the passion, and this turns coercive and judgmental. In a way, your dogmatic zeal to persuade others is a really a means to convince yourself of something that a part of you still denies subconsciously.

Also, there is the power of momentum. Once a grand event has been put into motion, it’s hard to change course. Too much has been invested in pride, material, propaganda, and etc. Once WWI got started, it was fight to the end. And when Germany invaded USSR, there was no turning back. And even those who didn’t like the idea had to go along. And same with Japan in war with US.

Once the die has been cast, you find yourself with little choice but to go along… even if you know it will end badly. It’s like Mao and the Cultural Revolution. He learned early on that things were going badly, with Red Guards acting like tards and going beyond what Mao called for. But he let loose the fury, and there was no turning back until the fire burned out some of its own accord. Even Mao couldn’t shut it immediately since he’d told the young nuts to ‘bombard the headquarters’. Likewise, Merkel has called on foreign masses to bombard Europe. Having invested her pride and reputation on the rightness of her decision, she can’t go back. All in all, as horrible as the Cultural Revolution, it was nothing compared to the damage that will be done by the Tribal Revolution as new tribes invade and remake Europe.

Maybe all this stuff about ‘climate change’ or global warming is a way to channel one’s existential fears elsewhere to a safe space of discourse. The REAL threat to the West is massive invasion, but saying so is taboo, so Western Fears have been shifted to worrying about the weather. So, it is safer to attach whatever is wrong in the world to ‘climate change’. So, if there are mobs, esp non-whites, rioting in some part of the world, it must be the result of ‘climate change’. So, something has to be done about it… like having more non-whites come to the West. This is totally crazy, but when a civilization is in a state of Denialia and cannot speak the truth, it will seek something else to scapegoat as the source of problem.

PC is such a pile of lie that Denialia has become a condition of the Modern World. We don’t deny little things here and there. We deny huge swathes of reality altogether.

In a way, gentrification is proof that even globo-elites are onto what’s really up. If diversity is making everything so much better, why are they creating these self-contained oases of privilege APART from rest of society that is becoming more diverse and confused? They talk of ‘sanctuary cities’ to protect the ‘poor illegal dreamers’, but real effect of ‘sanctuary cities’ is to maintain privilege in selective parts of cities(made posh and elegant) by keep a docile class of servant laborers.

It’s like all those jerks at Middlebury College. They attend some elite college and will aim for affluent jobs after college and will seek to live in urban-affluent sanctuaries but they talk the talk of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’.